[24841] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 6992 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat Sep 11 03:11:19 2004
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Sat, 11 Sep 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 6992
Today's topics:
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lpitcher@sympatico.ca>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism (Rob Warnock)
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <krw@att.bizzzz>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:33:21 -0000
From: SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <10k4ee1l5tavtf9@corp.supernews.com>
# I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
# misimplemented.
You haven't been listenning carefully enough. The agenda is to destroy the UN.
Neo-conservatives recognise that if the UN becomes powerful enough to deal with
people like Saddam Hussein, then it can deal with Bush as well. People
like Kissinger are still running around as big shots in America while other
countries consider him a war criminal.
There are actually idiots that believe the US will remain the most powerful
military forever (or until God ends the world a few years from now). The
rest who know that power is fleeting have two options: construct a world of
comprehensive cooperative political structures, or batter any possible opponents
so they cannot attack the eventually weakenned US.
The first choice was the one (more or less) followed by the US since about 1945
through 2000. It has a long history of success behind: while not yet of that scale,
the notion of uniting disparate political units to a larger whole for mutual
security and mutual trade has worked time and time again: modern England out of the
old feudal lords, or the US out of thirteen colonies. Up side: long term peace and
stability for your grandchildren. Down side: your own power is eclipsed by the
centralised power.
The second choice has been followed by the US since 2001. Again there is a long
history behind, always ending in failure: Persian empires, Roman Empires, Chinese
empires, etc. You can never inflict enough damage on your opponents so that once
you do weaken they cannot strike back and eviscerate your corpse. Up side: you
continue to live in wealth and luxury as long as you die before the bill comes due.
Down side: your grandchildren will curse your name if they survive.
So why follow a course known to end in disaster? Pride? Greed? Delusion that
the end of the world is nigh and God will forgive warmaking and genocide?
There is a second agenda which is also being implemented successfully. Conservatives
want to dismantle government because it interferes with their private pursuit
of profit and power (see also Miliken and Quatrone). Actually repealing the legal
framework has been unsuccessful: no matter how appealing their claims about taxes
and regulation, when push comes to shove, most people want a government that's
powerful enough to provide for the sick and old, stop quacks from killing patients,
stop manufacturers from killing customers, and to have water and air that are not
fatal to touch.
So since 1980 the conservatives still whine about big government, but they are quite
happy to increase the government size and expenditure. While cutting taxes. The net
effect is a government that is increasingly in debt. The long term goal is to get
the government so heavily indebted that it can no longer borrow money. Then it will
collapse of its own dead weight.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
No pleasure, no rapture, no exquiste sin greater than central air.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:33:22 -0000
From: SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <10k4ee2da90clfb@corp.supernews.com>
# Unless they were french speaking immigrants living in Quebec. I believe the
# law grants them a presumption of innocence *in spite of* evidence to the
# contrary.
I hope you understand that when US takes over Canada, we are not accepting Quebec.
That province will be floated and barged out somewhere into the north Atlantic. I
can't imagine France wanting them back. Maybe leave them in the middle with a big
bulls eye for the next comet. Atlantis II.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Death is the worry of the living. The dead, like myself,
only worry about decay and necrophiliacs.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:33:23 -0000
From: SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <10k4ee3jdtsif00@corp.supernews.com>
# the 1970s washing machines were the 3340s & 3350s ... but the 3350s
# enclosed and not removable/mountable; 3340s .... which had
# removable/mountable packs .... included the head assemble & platters
# completely enclosed.
#
# 3340 (winchester) reference, picture includes removable assembly on
# top of drives ("3348 data module"):
How's it feel to be a like an old war veteran sitting against the wall,
blinking in the morning sunlight? I used to lug around disk packs before
the first winchesters. Now I have a laptop with one disk drive, higher
capacity and faster access than a Cyber 170 disk farm. I remember when
we first saw the portapotty winchesters.
Before that they had a problem with (?)844 (I think that was the model
number). They transferred fast enough that on older machine, by the
time periphial processors read a sector, checked it, packaged it, moved
it central memory, the next sector was already under the head, requiring
a full revolution to read each sector. So they used half tracking
to make logical contiguous sectors physically discontiguous.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Title does not dictate behaviour.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:00:48 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <u656loerz.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
somewhat thread drift between ssa disk storage
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 SSA
ha/cmp
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
and electronic commerce
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn2
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn3
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:58:27 -0400
From: Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <w1s0d.44245$Nd6.1329663@news20.bellglobal.com>
-----BEGIN xxx SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
[snip]
>>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>>different.
>
>
> Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
> utilities that would copy anything to anything?
IBM 360/370/390... DOS (later DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, then VSE/SP, then VSE/ESA)
has a batch utility called DITTO, which copies files from device to device.
The closest analog in the pre-Unix and Unix world would be PIP
- --
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN xxx SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBQk2yagVFX4UWr64RApbeAJ9NPnvj1xxEHYQ88uZxuSPoFVAaJQCguw5X
+MJ6JJ0NS1fc4FnTsNCIzrI=
=MP33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:37:23 GMT
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <nFs0d.16580$bE1.9921251@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Lew Pitcher wrote:
> -----BEGIN xxx SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>>>different.
>>
>>
>>Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
>>utilities that would copy anything to anything?
>
>
> IBM 360/370/390... DOS (later DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, then VSE/SP, then VSE/ESA)
> has a batch utility called DITTO, which copies files from device to device.
There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since A)
OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER wasn't
all that hard to use.
And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.
> The closest analog in the pre-Unix and Unix world would be PIP
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:01:36 GMT
From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1vm4k05b230gskkeg498nf9cpqdl4formd@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:08:58 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Morten
Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <ullfinq1o.fsf@mail.comcast.net>,
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>>Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>>the next were the 3330s ... long cabinet unit looked similar to 2314
>>... but with only 8 drawers (instead of 9). 3330-i pack had 100mbytes
>>... later 3330-ii pack had 200mbytes. picutre of 3330 unit ... the three
>>cloaded plastic units on top of the unit were used to remove disk pack
>>and hold it.
>>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3330.html
>
>These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
>the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
>by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
ISTR RP series were Memorex drives; RM series were CDC drives; the
latter were more reliable than the former.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:29:11 -0500
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <5radnc6ukdVq_9_cRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@spamcop.net> wrote:
+---------------
| >and hidden from International Red Cross.
|
| Not very well, apparently. The Red Cross found them. So did a bunch of
| lawyers.
|
| You apparently haven't been keeping up. Those DNC talking points have
| been obsolete for a while now.
+---------------
The OP is apparently not the only one who hasn't been keeping up! ;-}
Look in today's (or yesterday's) news about new revelations during
recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings of dozens (possibly
hundreds) more "ghost detainees" at Abu Ghurayb that the CIA kept
off the books... and *still* hasn't produced records for. [Reference:
Knight Ridder story on page 7A of today's San Jose Mercury News.]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:26:20 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <u1xh9o2hf.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> writes:
> There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since
> A) OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER
> wasn't all that hard to use.
>
> And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.
similar to the stand-alone, self-loading (bootable) DEBE was LLMPS
... lincoln labs multiprogramming system .... which was self-loading
program with small multitasker and most of the feature/functions
provided were similar to DEBE.
the folklore is that LLMPS was also used as the core scaffolding for
MTS (michigan terminal system)
... misc. ref to LLMPS manual:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#0 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
random other refs to LLMPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#15 unit record & other controllers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#23 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#25 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#26 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#15 S/360 operating systems geneaology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#89 Ux's good points.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#55 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#45 Valid reference on lunar mission data being unreadable?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#89 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#54 SHARE MVT Project anniversary
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#64 PLX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#41 SLAC 370 Pascal compiler found
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#31 someone looking to donate IBM magazines and stuff
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:20:51 -0400
From: keith <krw@att.bizzzz>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <pan.2004.09.11.05.20.49.982149@att.bizzzz>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:35:48 +0000, Antony Sequeira wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>>
>> So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
>> lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
>> killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
>> longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
>> risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
>> studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
>>
> How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
> Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
> help avoid
> 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
> Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
> that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
> anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
> to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
You'd better fix your qqqqqqqqqqqq key before your head pops.
--
Keith
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:01:34 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ub4uhc.ibf2.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>
In article <10k4ee1l5tavtf9@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
># I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
># misimplemented.
>
>You haven't been listenning carefully enough. The agenda is to destroy the UN.
>Neo-conservatives recognise that if the UN becomes powerful enough to deal with
>people like Saddam Hussein, then it can deal with Bush as well. People
>like Kissinger are still running around as big shots in America while other
>countries consider him a war criminal.
This is not the stated agenda; but it may sound plausible. There is enough
UN-bashing going around to support it.
>There are actually idiots that believe the US will remain the most powerful
>military forever (or until God ends the world a few years from now). The
>rest who know that power is fleeting have two options: construct a world of
>comprehensive cooperative political structures, or batter any possible opponents
>so they cannot attack the eventually weakenned US.
>
>The first choice was the one (more or less) followed by the US since about 1945
>through 2000. It has a long history of success behind: while not yet of that scale,
>the notion of uniting disparate political units to a larger whole for mutual
>security and mutual trade has worked time and time again: modern England out of the
>old feudal lords, or the US out of thirteen colonies. Up side: long term peace and
>stability for your grandchildren. Down side: your own power is eclipsed by the
>centralised power.
>
>The second choice has been followed by the US since 2001. Again there is a long
>history behind, always ending in failure: Persian empires, Roman Empires, Chinese
>empires, etc. You can never inflict enough damage on your opponents so that once
>you do weaken they cannot strike back and eviscerate your corpse. Up side: you
>continue to live in wealth and luxury as long as you die before the bill comes due.
>Down side: your grandchildren will curse your name if they survive.
>
>So why follow a course known to end in disaster? Pride? Greed? Delusion that
>the end of the world is nigh and God will forgive warmaking and genocide?
Unilateralism can work for a while; as long as you switch back before it is
too late. Look at Holland and Britain for examples of successes.
But it still does not explain Iraq, except as a bungled attempt at
unilateralism. It expecially does not explain Bremer. Bremer is a PHB.
You would expect someone like Patton. Perhaps the right people didn't want
the job?
To get in control of a hostile country requires you to take hard action
immediatly. When someone blows a bomb you set a curfew in that province
for months, and shoot everyone that doesn't respect it; meanwhile you walk
through the whole place looking for the culprits. Perhaps they didn't have
stomack for this brutality?
>There is a second agenda which is also being implemented successfully. Conservatives
>want to dismantle government because it interferes with their private pursuit
>of profit and power (see also Miliken and Quatrone). Actually repealing the legal
>framework has been unsuccessful: no matter how appealing their claims about taxes
>and regulation, when push comes to shove, most people want a government that's
>powerful enough to provide for the sick and old, stop quacks from killing patients,
>stop manufacturers from killing customers, and to have water and air that are not
>fatal to touch.
>
>So since 1980 the conservatives still whine about big government, but they are quite
>happy to increase the government size and expenditure. While cutting taxes. The net
>effect is a government that is increasingly in debt. The long term goal is to get
>the government so heavily indebted that it can no longer borrow money. Then it will
>collapse of its own dead weight.
A weak central government is also a stated goal, but not a mainstream Republican
one. The official policy is a strong, but limited one.
-- mrr
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 6992
***************************************
